THE ETHICIST; The Sexagenarian Lothario

By CHERYL STRAYED

Published: May 27, 2012

CORRECTION APPENDED

From the start, I made it clear to the man with whom I was involved that I cared deeply about being safe from sexually transmitted diseases. He assured me he would be loyal and agreed that if he strayed, he would not have unprotected sex. He lied. He had sex with three women without using condoms. He has agreed to get tested but not to tell the other women about one another. They all believe him to be in a monogamous relationship with me. Two of the women are our age (we're in our 60s); the third is younger. I know all three women via Facebook. Do I have an ethical obligation to tell them about his activities? NAME WITHHELD

You do not. Unless you learn that your lover has a sexually transmitted disease and he refuses to disclose that information to his other lovers, there is nothing for you to tell them that they don't already know. They're aware that this man is not monogamous and also that he doesn't practice protected sex. Indeed, all three women agreed to do the same when they opted to have unprotected sex with him knowing he was also having sex with you. My hunch is you don't really want to tell these women about your lover's tomcatting ways because you fear he has spread a disease, but rather that you're hurt and angry about his betrayal and you want to punish him (and possibly the women too). That's perfectly understandable but a losing prospect nonetheless.

REGIFTED

I work with a young woman who has had misfortunes. I offered her some hardwood flooring left over from a home renovation. I said that if she didn't want it, I was planning to give it to Habitat for Humanity and that I expected no payment. She accepted my offer. Recently she told me that her sister was going to buy the flooring from her and hoped I wouldn't be angry. I have mixed feelings. She is under no obligation to use the flooring, yet I feel like a dupe because she is profiting from something that was given to her. NAME WITHHELD

Your friend has done nothing wrong. When you gave her the flooring, it became her property to use or dispose of as she saw fit. That she is receiving cash in exchange for materials you paid for feels a tad awkward, no doubt, because you're rubbing up against the difference between ethics and etiquette.

If you had given the flooring to Habitat for Humanity and that organization auctioned it at a fund-raiser instead of installing it in one of its buildings, would you feel like a dupe? I'd guess not. I imagine you would be pleased with this outcome, knowing an item for which you had no use benefited a worthy organization. But you didn't give it to Habitat for Humanity; you gave it to a friend. It became a personal gift, and when you learned that it was being sold, you got a squinchy feeling inside. (The fact that your friend hoped you wouldn't be angry tells me that she's feeling squinchy, too.) It would be polite for her to offer you a portion of the proceeds. It would be more polite for you to let this go. You gave the flooring away because you deemed it the easiest and most generous thing to do. Make peace with that. And next time call Habitat for Humanity.

WHERE THERE'S A WILL

Before a dear friend died, she requested that her wealthy, widowed mother change her will so that my friend's share would go to her husband of 30 years (the will named my friend and her only sibling). Her mother -- who is in her 90s -- agreed but later reneged when pressured by her surviving daughter and son-in-law. The will has not been updated, and no one is speaking to one another. I may be called upon to help break the deadlock. I'd like to support my friend's husband, but my judgment may be colored by the knowledge that he indulged in numerous affairs. Should his infidelities matter? NAME WITHHELD, TORONTO

Widowed, elderly women are not obligated to provide for their grown children and their grown children's spouses upon their deaths, no matter how wealthy they are or how many hissy fits their adult children throw. The husband's infidelities don't have any bearing on this matter. Neither do your friend's wishes nor her sister's. There is no deadlock. There is only what one woman wishes to do with her real and personal property after she's dead. In her will, she alone gets to decide what goes to whom. To believe otherwise is presumptuous at best and piggish at worst.

With that in mind, I encourage you to use your influence by reminding the parties of this singularly salient fact -- especially your friend's mother, who is no doubt feeling besieged and could probably use your support. Grief has a way of undoing things. But it also forces us to put things back together anew. There is no better time than now for your friend's mother to reassess the terms of her will. It doesn't matter who wants what. It matters only how she wishes to divide her estate among her family members, if at all. She could always start a foundation instead: the Society for the Rehabilitation of Overly Entitled Adult Children Who Are Short on Shame and Long on Gall.

E-mail queries to ethicist@nytimes.com, or send them to the Ethicist, The New York Times Magazine, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10018, and include a daytime phone number.

DRAWING (DRAWING BY MATTHEW WOODSON)

Correction: June 17, 2012, Sunday

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: Credits with the Ethicist columns on May 27 and June 3 misidentified the illustrators of the authors' silhouettes. They were done by the magazine's art staff, not by Matthew Woodson (a regular illustrator of the column).